Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 49 references

A dichotomy for inverse-semigroup crossed products via dynamical Cuntz semigroups

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proves a stably finite / purely infinite dichotomy for essential crossed products of inverse-semigroup actions, decided by whether the dynamical Cuntz semigroup admits a nontrivial state.

desk verdict Solid, carefully built paper: a new dynamical Cuntz semigroup for inverse-semigroup actions, a dichotomy under the reduced=essential assumption, and an honest special-case recovery of KMP non-Hausdorff results. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07100 v2 pith:EPZL74H2 submitted 2026-01-11 math.OA

Becky Armstrong , Lisa Orloff Clark , Astrid an Huef , Diego Martínez , Ilija Tolich This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OA MSC 46L05
keywords inversesemigroupactionCuntzdynamicalstablyfinitepurelyinfinitetypenon-Hausdorffgroupoid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks when a C*-algebra built from an action of an inverse semigroup—a set of partial symmetries with a unique inverse for each element—is stably finite (no infinite projections, so it behaves like finite-dimensional matrix algebras) or purely infinite (every nonzero positive element contains a copy of itself twice, a C*-algebraic version of the Banach–Tarski paradox). The authors introduce the dynamical Cuntz semigroup, a measure-like invariant assembled from the Cuntz semigroup of the underlying algebra (the monoid of positive elements up to mutual approximation) together with the action, and prove that the essential crossed product—the version of the crossed product with the correct ideal structure—is stably finite exactly when this semigroup admits a nontrivial state (an order-preserving homomorphism to the extended positive reals), and purely infinite exactly when it admits none. Under minimality (no nontrivial invariant ideals), aperiodicity (a topological freeness condition), and the assumption that the reduced and essential crossed products—the two standard completions of the same algebraic object—coincide, these two alternatives are exhaustive: the crossed product is either stably finite or purely infinite. They then show a smaller retract of the Cuntz semigroup suffices, making the dichotomy usable in commutative cases and recovering known dichotomy results for non-Hausdorff groupoid C*-algebras.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamical Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)α, a subquotient of the Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)—the monoid of positive elements up to Cuntz equivalence (mutual subequivalence by approximate conjugation). It is formed by quotienting by the transitive closure of an order relation ⪯α that lets pieces be moved by the inverse-semigroup action: x ⪯α y when x can be covered by finitely many pieces that, after being moved, lie inside y. It records paradoxical decompositions—x is (k,l)-paradoxical if kx ⪯α,path lx for k>l—and 'plain paradoxes' means that whenever (n+1)x ≤ nx in the quotient, the element is properly infinite (2x ≤ x). The proof uses a classical theorem on preordered monoids: co

What would settle it

Search for a minimal aperiodic action of a unital inverse semigroup on a separable unital exact C*-algebra with A ⋊red S = A ⋊ess S and Cu(A)α having plain paradoxes, for which the crossed product is simple, has no tracial states, but contains a nonzero finite projection; Theorem 6.2 predicts pure infiniteness, so such an example would falsify it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single invariant—the dynamical Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)α, built from Cu(A) (the Cuntz semigroup of positive elements up to mutual approximation) by quotienting out the equivalence relation generated by the action—decides the finiteness type of the essential crossed product. The authors prove two equivalences: A ⋊ess S is stably finite if and only if Cu(A)α admits a nontrivial order-preserving homomorphism to the extended positive reals (a measure-like 'state'), and purely infinite if and only if no such homomorphism exists. Under minimality, aperiodicity, and the assumption that the reduced and essential crossed products coincide, the presence of 'plain parad

Load-bearing premise

The dichotomy collapses if reduced and essential crossed products differ; the proof requires A ⋊red S = A ⋊ess S so that faithful traces lift to the crossed product and ideals are detected, a condition the paper describes as an 'inherent tension' between the two constructions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the hypotheses hold, the crossed product cannot be a middle case: it is either stably finite or purely infinite, with stable finiteness detected by the existence of a faithful invariant tracial state and pure infiniteness by the absence of all tracial states.
  • The dichotomy can be verified on a retract of the Cuntz semigroup rather than the full, often intractable invariant; for commutative algebras this retract is the monoid of lower-semicontinuous integer-valued functions.
  • As a corollary, the essential C*-algebra of a minimal topologically free étale groupoid with compact Hausdorff unit space, whose reduced and essential C*-algebras coincide, is either stably finite or purely infinite when the associated type semigroup has plain paradoxes.
  • The results unify and extend prior dichotomy theorems: they generalise the known stably-finite/purely-infinite dichotomy for crossed products by group automorphisms and recover existing results for non-Hausdorff groupoid C*-algebras as special cases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the dichotomy is right, the decider is purely measure-theoretic: the existence of an invariant measure-like functional on the dynamical Cuntz semigroup forces stable finiteness, and its absence forces pure infiniteness. This suggests that, for these crossed products, the finite/infinite distinction is a property of the dynamics' paradoxicality rather than of the fine structure of the algebra.
  • The equality A ⋊red S = A ⋊ess S is a genuine limitation: the paper itself, in its introduction, calls the tension between these two objects 'inherent'. One could try to prove the same dichotomy for A ⋊ess S alone, but the trace-extension argument would need a new idea, since faithful invariant traces on A need not extend to a quotient of the reduced crossed product.
  • The paper itself flags two open bottlenecks: the plain-paradoxes condition (Section 7) is hard to verify in general, and the aperiodicity assumption (Remark 5.4) could not be removed in the noncommutative setting. Finding classes of actions where these hypotheses are automatic—or proving the dichotomy without them—would be the next test of how fundamental the result is.
  • In the commutative case, the retract Lsc(X,N̄) is exactly the classical type semigroup used in Banach–Tarski-style paradox results, so this paper supplies a Cuntz-semigroup route to that territory; one might expect further interaction between Cuntz-semigroup techniques and groupoid type semigroups in noncommutative settings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dynamical Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)_α for an action of a unital inverse semigroup S on a C*-algebra A, as a quotient of Cu(A)^≪ by the α-path-below relation. The declared main results (Theorems 5.5, 6.1, 6.2, 7.12) characterize stable finiteness and pure infiniteness of the essential crossed product A ⋊_ess S, and of A ⋊_red S under the hypothesis A ⋊_red S = A ⋊_ess S, in terms of existence and non-existence of states on Cu(A)_α. These results are obtained under minimality, aperiodicity, separability, unitality and exactness, together with the additional structural condition that the reduced and essential crossed products coincide. Section 7 shows that a strongly invariant retract R of Cu(A) can replace Cu(A), and Section 8 applies the framework to étale groupoids with compact Hausdorff unit space by exhibiting Lsc(X,N) as a retract of Cu(C(X)).

Significance. If the main results stand, the paper provides a unified Cuntz-semigroup framework for inverse-semigroup crossed products that extends Rainone's group-action dichotomy, and it supplies a concrete retract in the commutative setting. The definitions are detailed, the chain of implications in Theorems 5.5, 6.1 and 7.12 is checkable, and the state-based formulation of the dichotomy is conceptually attractive. However, the advertised recovery of non-Hausdorff groupoid results is substantially narrower than stated, and a key preliminary theorem has a flawed proof as written. These issues are fixable but should be addressed before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Introduction and Theorems 6.2, 8.12] The dichotomy is proved only under A ⋊_red S = A ⋊_ess S, and Remark 2.24 shows that in the commutative case this equality corresponds to a closed/Hausdorff-type condition. Corollary 8.12 consequently assumes C*_red(G)=C*_ess(G), and Section 8 itself states that Corollary 8.12 is a special case of Kwaśniewski–Meyer–Prasad's dichotomy, not a recovery of the general non-Hausdorff theorem. The abstract's claim that the paper 'recovers results ... on C*-algebras of non-Hausdorff groupoids' is therefore overstated. Please revise the abstract and introduction to state explicitly that the groupoid applications require C*_red(G)=C*_ess(G).
  2. [Theorem 3.4] The proof of Tarski's theorem contains an invalid inference: from nx ≥ (n+k)x = nx+kx the text concludes kx ≤ 0, but cancellation is not available in a general preordered abelian monoid. The conclusion can be recovered by a different argument (from mx ≤ nx with m>n, positivity and translation give (n+1)x ≤ mx ≤ nx), but the proof as written must be corrected. Since Theorem 3.4 is used in Theorems 4.20, 5.5, 6.1, 7.9 and 7.10, the authors should either provide the corrected argument or simply cite the standard reference without proof.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Definition 4.11] The sentence 'Since ⪯_α is reflexive and transitive' should read 'Since ⪯_{α,path} is reflexive and transitive'.
  2. [Example 2.25] In the formula for Ψ, the text 'for a, b∈ and c ∈ J' is missing the algebra symbol in the second entry.
  3. [Theorem 5.5] The statement '(1)=⇒(2) if A ⋊_red S is simple' is equivalent to the equality hypothesis in the aperiodic alternative, because a nonzero quotient of a simple algebra is injective. It would be helpful to state this explicitly, since otherwise the reader may think there are two genuinely different hypotheses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the dichotomy follows from independently established Cuntz-semigroup and crossed-product theorems under explicit hypotheses.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is not circular. The dynamical Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)_alpha is constructed from Cu(A) and the inverse-semigroup action, and the relations ⪯_alpha and ⪯_alpha,path are defined rather than imported as conclusions. Theorem 5.3 proves the trace correspondence via the conditional expectations E and E_L and standard facts about A''; it does not assume the crossed product is stably finite. The equivalences in Theorems 5.5 and 6.1 are proved stepwise using Tarski's theorem, Lemma 4.8, Theorem 4.19, and external results such as [25] and [20]; plain paradoxes is an explicit additional hypothesis on the semigroup, not a renamed form of the target dichotomy. The hypothesis A ⋊_red S = A ⋊_ess S is openly stated and used as a genuine assumption; Remark 2.24 even identifies it with a closed/Hausdorff condition, so this is a scope restriction, not circularity. Self-citations such as [13] (Buss–Martínez, one current author) provide foundational crossed-product facts that are also cited to independent sources [12,25,17] and do not inject the main theorem into the assumptions. The admitted special-case relation to [26] is an acknowledgement, not a disguised input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two new constructed semigroups but no fitted parameters. It depends on a substantial body of standard C*-algebra, Cuntz-semigroup, and crossed-product theory, plus several powerful prior results from Kwaśniewski–Meyer and Kwaśniewski–Meyer–Prasad. Those external theorems are load-bearing, especially the ideal-detection and simplicity results, but they are not circular relative to the paper's central claim.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Cu(A) is a Cu-semigroup satisfying axioms (O1)-(O4), and functionals on Cu(A) correspond to lower-semicontinuous quasitraces ([15, Prop 4.2], [19, Thm 4.6]).
    Used throughout Sections 3-4; e.g., Theorem 3.17 and Proposition 3.24.
  • standard math Wehrung's injectivity of [0,∞] and Tarski's theorem for preordered abelian monoids.
    Used in Theorem 3.4 to convert non-paradoxicality into a nontrivial order-preserving homomorphism; central to Theorems 5.5 and 6.1.
  • domain assumption On unital exact C*-algebras, normalized quasitraces are traces ([20, Theorem 5.11]).
    Used in Theorem 5.3 to pass from invariant Cu-functionals to tracial states; exactness is a standing hypothesis in the main theorems.
  • domain assumption Simplicity and ideal-detection results for essential crossed products: [25, Theorems 6.5(3), 6.6, Corollary 6.7].
    Used to prove A⋊ess S is simple under minimal aperiodic hypotheses and to prove the purely-infinite implication in Theorem 6.1; these are cited prior results, not reproved.
  • standard math Local-multiplier-algebra inclusions and the existence of weak conditional expectations E and EL ([4], [33], [35], [12, Lemma 4.5], [25, Prop 4.3]).
    Builds the reduced and essential crossed products in Section 2. The proof of Theorem 2.21 is explicitly omitted and deferred to these references.
  • domain assumption Lsc(X, Nbar) is a Cu-semigroup and has almost refinement ([48, Cor 4.19], [26, Lemma 4.13]).
    Used in Section 8 to make Lsc(X, Nbar) a strongly invariant retract of Cu(C(X)) and to avoid the path completion in the commutative groupoid case.
invented entities (2)
  • Dynamical Cuntz semigroup Cu(A)_α
    purpose: A subquotient of the Cuntz semigroup whose nontrivial states detect stable finiteness versus pure infiniteness of A ⋊ess S.
    Introduced in Definition 4.11. Its usefulness is demonstrated internally by Theorems 5.5-6.2, but it has no external empirical handle.
  • Retracted dynamical Cuntz semigroup R_α
    purpose: A smaller analogue built from a strongly invariant retract, used in Theorem 7.12 to make the dichotomy more computable.
    Introduced in Definition 7.5. The commutative instance recovers already-known type semigroups from [9,26,28,38].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A dichotomy for inverse-semigroup crossed products via dynamical Cuntz semigroups." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EPZL74H2

@misc{pith2026260107100,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A dichotomy for inverse-semigroup crossed products via dynamical Cuntz semigroups},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EPZL74H2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07100}
}
read the original abstract

We characterise stable finiteness and pure infiniteness of the essential crossed product of a C*-algebra by an action of an inverse semigroup. Under additional assumptions, we prove a stably finite / purely infinite dichotomy. Our main technique is the development, using an induced action, of a ``dynamical Cuntz semigroup'' that is a subquotient of the usual Cuntz semigroup. We prove that the essential crossed product is stably finite / purely infinite if and only if the dynamical Cuntz semigroup admits / does not admit a nontrivial state. Indeed, a retract of our dynamical Cuntz semigroup suffices to prove the dichotomy. Our results generalise those by Rainone on crossed products of groups acting by automorphisms of a C*-algebra, and we recover results by Kwa\'sniewski--Meyer--Prasad on C*-algebras of non-Hausdorff groupoids.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [26]

    Kwa´ sniewski, R

    B.K. Kwa´ sniewski, R. Meyer, and A. Prasad, Type semigroups for twisted groupoids and a dichotomy for groupoid C*-algebras, preprint, 2025, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.17190

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.17190 2025

  2. [1]

    P. Ara, C. B¨ onicke, J. Bosa, and K. Li, Strict comparison for C*-algebras arising from almost finite groupoids, Banach J. Math. Anal. 14 (2020), 1692–1710, DOI: 10.1007/s43037-020-00079-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s43037-020-00079-6 2020

  3. [2]

    Systems 43 (2023), 361–400, DOI: 10.1017/etds.2021.115

    , The type semigroup, comparison, and almost finiteness for ample groupoids , Ergodic Theory Dy- nam. Systems 43 (2023), 361–400, DOI: 10.1017/etds.2021.115

    work page doi:10.1017/etds.2021.115 2023

  4. [3]

    P. Ara, F. Lled´ o, and D. Mart ´ ınez,Amenability and paradoxicality in semigroups and C*-algebras, J. Funct. Anal. 279 (2020), 108530, 43 pp., DOI: 10.1016/j.jfa.2020.108530

    arXiv 2020

  5. [4]

    Ara and M

    P. Ara and M. Mathieu, Local Multipliers of C*-Algebras , Springer Monogr. Math., Springer-Verlag, Lon- don, 2003, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-0045-4

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-0045-4 2003

  6. [5]

    P. Ara, F. Perera, and A.S. Toms, K-Theory for Operator Algebras. Classification of C* Algebras. , Aspects of Operator Algebras and Applications, Contemp. Math., vol. 534, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, DOI: 10.1090/conm/534/10521, pp. 1–71

    work page doi:10.1090/conm/534/10521 2011

  7. [6]

    Blackadar, K-Theory for Operator Algebras , second ed., Math

    B. Blackadar, K-Theory for Operator Algebras , second ed., Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ., vol. 5, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, DOI: 10.1017/9781009701907

    work page doi:10.1017/9781009701907 1998

  8. [7]

    122, Springer, Berlin, 2006, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-28517-2

    , Operator Algebras: Theory of C*-Algebras and von Neumann Algebras , Encyclopaedia of Mathe- matical Sciences, vol. 122, Springer, Berlin, 2006, DOI: 10.1007/3-540-28517-2

    doi:10.1007/3-540-28517-2 2006

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Blanchard and E

    E. Blanchard and E. Kirchberg, Non-simple purely infinite C*-algebras: the Hausdorff case , J. Funct. Anal. 207 (2004), 461–513, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfa.2003.06.008

    2004 doi

  2. [9]

    B¨ onicke and K

    C. B¨ onicke and K. Li,Ideal structure and pure infiniteness of ample groupoid C*-algebras , Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems 40 (2020), 34–63, DOI: 10.1017/etds.2018.39

    2020 doi

  3. [10]

    J. Bosa, F. Perera, J. Wu, and J. Zacharias, The dynamical Cuntz semigroup and ideal-free quotients of Cuntz semigroups, Linear Algebra Appl. 725 (2025), 248–308, DOI: 10.1016/j.laa.2025.07.006. 46 ARMSTRONG, CLARK, AN HUEF, MART ´INEZ, AND TOLICH

    2025 doi

  4. [11]

    Brown and A

    N.P. Brown and A. Ciuperca, Isomorphism of Hilbert modules over stably finite C*-algebras , J. Funct. Anal. 257 (2009), 332–339, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfa.2008.12.004

    2009 doi

  5. [12]

    A. Buss, R. Exel, and R. Meyer, Reduced C*-algebras of Fell bundles over inverse semigroups , Israel J. Math. 220 (2017), 225–274, DOI: 10.1007/s11856-017-1516-9

    2017 doi

  6. [13]

    Buss and D

    A. Buss and D. Mart ´ ınez, Approximation properties of Fell bundles over inverse semigroups and non- Hausdorff groupoids, Adv. Math. 431 (2023), 109251, 54 pp., DOI: 10.1016/j.aim.2023.109251

    2023

  7. [14]

    Coward, G.A

    K.T. Coward, G.A. Elliott, and C. Ivanescu, The Cuntz semigroup as an invariant for C*-algebras , J. Reine Angew. Math. 623 (2008), 161–193, DOI: 10.1515/CRELLE.2008.075

    2008 doi

  8. [15]

    Elliott, L

    G.A. Elliott, L. Robert, and L. Santiago, The cone of lower semicontinuous traces on a C*-algebra , Amer. J. Math. 133 (2011), 969–1005, DOI: 10.1353/ajm.2011.0027

    2011

  9. [16]

    Exel, Inverse semigroups and combinatorial C*-algebras , Bull

    R. Exel, Inverse semigroups and combinatorial C*-algebras , Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 39 (2008), 191– 313, DOI: 10.1007/s00574-008-0080-7

    2008 doi

  10. [17]

    , Noncommutative Cartan subalgebras of C*-algebras , New York J. Math. 17 (2011), 331–382

    2011

  11. [18]

    Exel and D.R

    R. Exel and D.R. Pitts, Characterizing Groupoid C*-algebras of Non-Hausdorff ´Etale Groupoids, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 2306, Springer, Cham, 2022, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-05513-3

    2022 doi

  12. [19]

    Gardella and F

    E. Gardella and F. Perera, The modern theory of Cuntz semigroups of C*-algebras , EMS Surv. Math. Sci. (2024), 1–62, DOI: 10.4171/emss/84

    2024 doi

  13. [20]

    Haagerup, Quasitraces on exact C*-algebras are traces , C

    U. Haagerup, Quasitraces on exact C*-algebras are traces , C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can. 36 (2014), 67–92, mathreports.ca/article/quasitraces-on-exact-c-algebras-are-traces-2

    2014

  14. [21]

    Jacelon, A simple, monotracial, stably projectionless C*-algebra, J

    B. Jacelon, A simple, monotracial, stably projectionless C*-algebra, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 87 (2013), 365–383, DOI: 10.1112/jlms/jds049

    2013 doi

  15. [22]

    Kennedy, S.-J

    M. Kennedy, S.-J. Kim, X. Li, S. Raum, and D. Ursu, The ideal intersection property for essential groupoid C*-algebras, preprint, 2021, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2107.03980

    2021 doi arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kerr, Dimension, comparison, and almost finiteness , J

    D. Kerr, Dimension, comparison, and almost finiteness , J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 22 (2020), 3697–3745, DOI: 10.4171/jems/995

    2020 doi

  17. [24]

    Kirchberg and M

    E. Kirchberg and M. Rørdam, Non-simple purely infinite C*-algebras, Amer. J. Math. 122 (2000), 637–666, DOI: 10.1353/ajm.2000.0021

    2000

  18. [25]

    Kwa´ sniewski and R

    B.K. Kwa´ sniewski and R. Meyer,Essential crossed products for inverse semigroup actions: simplicity and pure infiniteness, Doc. Math. 26 (2021), 271–335, DOI: 10.4171/dm/815

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Ma, A generalized type semigroup and dynamical comparison , Ergodic Theory Dynam

    X. Ma, A generalized type semigroup and dynamical comparison , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 41 (2021), 2148–2165, DOI: 10.1017/etds.2020.28

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    , Purely infinite locally compact Hausdorff ´ etale groupoids and their C*-algebras , Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2022 (2022), 8420–8471, DOI: 10.1093/imrn/rnaa360

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    , A categorical study on the generalized type semigroup , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 151 (2023), 1561– 1568, DOI: 10.1090/proc/16193

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Murphy, C*-Algebras and Operator Theory, Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990

    G.J. Murphy, C*-Algebras and Operator Theory, Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1990

    1990

  23. [31]

    Ortega, M

    E. Ortega, M. Rørdam, and H. Thiel, The Cuntz semigroup and comparison of open projections , Journal of Functional Analysis 260 (2011), 3474–3493, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfa.2011.02.017

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Paterson, Groupoids, Inverse Semigroups, and Their Operator Algebras , Progr

    A.L.T. Paterson, Groupoids, Inverse Semigroups, and Their Operator Algebras , Progr. Math., vol. 170, Birkh¨ auser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1999, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1774-9

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    Pedersen, C*-Algebras and Their Automorphism Groups , second ed., Pure Appl

    G.K. Pedersen, C*-Algebras and Their Automorphism Groups , second ed., Pure Appl. Math. (Amst.), Academic Press, London, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/c2016-0-03431-9

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    Perera, The structure of positive elements for C*-algebras with real rank zero , Internat

    F. Perera, The structure of positive elements for C*-algebras with real rank zero , Internat. J. Math. 8 (1997), 383–405, DOI: 10.1142/S0129167X97000196

    1997 doi

  27. [35]

    Raeburn and D.P

    I. Raeburn and D.P. Williams, Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras, Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol. 60, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1998, DOI: 10.1090/surv/060

    1998 doi

  28. [36]

    Rainone, Noncommutative topological dynamics , Proc

    T. Rainone, Noncommutative topological dynamics , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 112 (2016), 903–923, DOI: 10.1112/plms/pdw011

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Noncommut

    , Finiteness and paradoxical decompositions in C*-dynamical systems , J. Noncommut. Geom. 11 (2017), 791–822, DOI: 10.4171/JNCG/11-2-11

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Rainone and A

    T. Rainone and A. Sims, A dichotomy for groupoid C*-algebras , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 40 (2020), 521–563, DOI: 10.1017/etds.2018.52

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Robert, The cone of functionals on the Cuntz semigroup , Math

    L. Robert, The cone of functionals on the Cuntz semigroup , Math. Scand. 113 (2013), 161–186, DOI: 10.7146/math.scand.a-15568

    2013 doi

  32. [40]

    , The Cuntz semigroup of some spaces of dimension at most two , C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can. 35 (2013), 22–32

    2013

  33. [41]

    Robert and A

    L. Robert and A. Tikuisis, Hilbert C*-modules over a commutative C*-algebra , Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 102 (2011), 229–256, DOI: 10.1112/plms/pdq017. A DICHOTOMY FOR INVERSE-SEMIGROUP CROSSED PRODUCTS 47

    2011 doi

  34. [42]

    Rørdam, F

    M. Rørdam, F. Larsen, and N. Laustsen, An introduction to K-theory for C*-algebras , London Math. Soc. Stud. Texts, vol. 49, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  35. [43]

    Saitˆ o and J.D.M

    K. Saitˆ o and J.D.M. Wright, Monotone Complete C*-algebras and Generic Dynamics , Springer Monogr. Math., Springer, London, 2015, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6775-4

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Sieben, C*-crossed products by partial actions and actions of inverse semigroups , J

    N. Sieben, C*-crossed products by partial actions and actions of inverse semigroups , J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A 63 (1997), 32–46, DOI: 10.1017/s1446788700000306

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Thiel, The Cuntz semigroup , 2017, hannesthiel.org/wp-content/OtherWriting/CuScript.pdf

    H. Thiel, The Cuntz semigroup , 2017, hannesthiel.org/wp-content/OtherWriting/CuScript.pdf

    2017

  38. [46]

    Thiel and E

    H. Thiel and E. Vilalta, Covering dimension of Cuntz semigroups , Adv. Math. 394 (2022), Paper No. 108016, 44, DOI: 10.1016/j.aim.2021.108016

    2022

  39. [47]

    Tomkowicz and S

    G. Tomkowicz and S. Wagon, The Banach–Tarski Paradox , second ed., Encyclopedia Math. Appl., vol. 163, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2016, DOI: 10.1017/cbo9781107337145

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Vilalta, The Cuntz semigroup of unital commutative AI-algebras , Canad

    E. Vilalta, The Cuntz semigroup of unital commutative AI-algebras , Canad. J. Math. 75 (2023), 1831–1868, DOI: 10.4153/s0008414x22000542

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Wehrung, Injective positively ordered monoids

    F. Wehrung, Injective positively ordered monoids. I , J. Pure Appl. Algebra 83 (1992), 43–82, DOI: 10.1016/0022-4049(92)90104-N. (B. Armstrong, L.O. Clark, A. an Huef, and I. Tolich) School of Mathematics and Statistics, Vic- toria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Welling...

    1992 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.